Current weather

A federal judge has ruled that some ''past, present and future'' applicants rejected by the University of Georgia can join a lawsuit claiming race and sex discrimination in the university's entrance practices.

The court order granting class-action status hands a new victory to plaintiffs involved in a three-year fight to overturn affirmative action in admissions at the flagship university.

The new ruling also joins two suits filed against the university by Atlanta attorney A. Lee Parks Jr. on behalf of applicants Jennifer Johnson, Aimee Bogrow, Molly Ann Beckenhauer and Lindsey Donaldson. They claim the university would have admitted them for fall 1999 if they were black males.

Parks said hundreds of new plaintiffs with similar complaints could join the newly consolidated claim after notices go out from his office and the state alerts rejected applicants. The court order was issued Monday in Savannah by U.S. District Judge B. Avant Edenfield.

Parks read the ruling as an early win and the natural result of UGA President Michael Adams' decision in September to keep the school's 3-year-old racial preference in place, despite previous advice from Edenfield.

''They were given fair warning not to do this,'' Parks said Tuesday. ''Adams decided to stand alone. We wouldn't have to go through this if we had just resolved'' matters outside court.

The majority of students are admitted to the school based only on grades and standardized test scores, but borderline students who account for 10 percent to 20 percent of admissions are awarded extra points if they are black, come from poor school districts or are the children of alumni. More than 3,400 applicants were considered in the borderline pool for fall 1999.

In the ruling, Edenfield also denied a state motion for a change of venue and a state motion for dismissal on the grounds of sovereign immunity, a doctrine which bars federal suits against a state in some cases.

Edenfield has not ruled yet on the merits of the lawsuit, but he voices doubt in his new ruling over the U.S. Supreme Court's 1978 Bakke decision, which upheld a racial point system similar to the one UGA admissions uses.

''In light of more recent Supreme Court cases, there is indeed strong doubt as to whether Bakke's reasoning remains sound,'' he wrote.

The judge provides state attorneys a spot of relief in the 22-page ruling by barring applicants rejected by other Georgia public colleges from participating in the lawsuit. The university is the only one in the state which openly employs the use of race in admitting students.

The university had adopted a gender preference because women on campus outnumber men. This fall, Adams dropped that slight preference for male applicants as ''less defensible'' under the law.

The state argued in motions for the dismissal of the Johnson lawsuit because she was admitted three days after filing suit.

Edenfield rejected that argument this week, noting that Johnson has an interest in pursuing the claim, ''since UGA apparently will cease applying its racial preference only to those who sue.''

Parks said his list of plaintiffs has already grown beyond 20 and could include a black female applicant who claims she would have been admitted to UGA if she were a black male.

Edenfield has not ruled yet on a plaintiff's motion to enjoin the university from using race as one factor in admitting borderline applicants for next year.

Edenfield's clerk, Wayne Williams, said the judge still could hear evidence on the matter after parties in the dispute consider the new ruling.

Last month, the state asked the court to allow the university to continue to use race as a factor for admissions next fall, saying it would not harm the women who filed suit.

In papers filed in the Southern District in Savannah, the state said continuing to use race in year 2000 admissions poses ''no real threat of impending injury'' to the women.

''In addition, the manner in which race will continue to be used as a factor in admissions has not yet been finalized by UGA,'' the state said, adding that an immediate ban would be ''inappropriate and premature.''